Higher Education 24: 25--40, 1992.

9 1992 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printedin the Netherlands.

Sources of academic stress: the case of first year Jewish and Arab
college students in Israel

MOSHE ZEIDNER
University of Haifa, School of Education, Mr. Carmel31999Israel

Abstract. This study examined sociocultural and gender group differences in perceptions of major
sources of academic stress in first year college students, in addition to the relationship between reported
academic stress and college achievement. Data were collected via a self-administered student stress
inventory given to a sample of 184 Jewish and 209 Arab college undergraduates studying in a major
Israel university. They evaluated the personal stressfulness of each of 53 potential sources of academic
stress along a 6-point Likert-type scale covering a wide range of potential academic stressors (academic
curriculum and course requirements, course evaluation procedures, college instruction, social milieu
and cultural factors on campus, college administration and bureaucracy, physical conditions and
accommodations, economic factors, organismic and interpersonal factors, student expectations, daily
hassles and constraints). Arab, lower-status, and female students were hypothesized and found to be
more stressed than their respective Jewish, upper-class and male counterparts, respectively. Cultural
group background was found to be the most salient background predictor of student stress, followed by
social class and gender, with each exerting independent (noninteractive) effects. Although group
differences were observed in mean ratings, there proved to be a strong correspondence in the hierarchy
of perceived stressors across sociocultural and gender subgroups. As a whole, students appeared to be
most stressed by pressures originating from course overload and academic evaluation procedures and
least stressed by a variety of personal, familial, and social factors. Furthermore, student stress and
achievement factors were found to be inversely correlated, with little evidence for the contention that
stress differentially debilitates the academic performance of students as a function of gender or
sociocultural group membership. The findings also lend some evidence to the cross-cultural
generalizability of major stressors in academia.

Stress and its psychological manifestations are inherent in human life and are a
major source of concern in modern day society (Selye 1956). Environmental stress
occurs when environmental stimuli or demands are perceived by an individual to tax
or exceed his or her resources to handle them (Lazarus and Launier 1978). The
degree of stress experienced by an individual in a given situation depends not only
on the objective properties of the stressor (e.g., intensity, frequency, duration), the
individual's perception and processing of the event, and one's personal coping
resources and strategies in transacting with environmental stressors, but also on the
specific context and period of one's life cycle in which environmental demands are
experienced. Accordingly, certain events, social environments and contexts in a
person's life may be perceived as more stressful than others. A case in point is the
first year college experience.
The first year in college poses many new challenging and potentially threatening
situational demands for the incoming student, requiring major adjustments to novel
and distinctive experiences (Mechanic 1962). College freshmen are required to
adjust to the sometimes overwhelming demands of the academic curricula (stringent
26

requirements for passing, massive amount of reading assignments, extensive

research reports, etc.) and to adjust to novel instructional systems (e.g., group
lectures, tutorials, quiz sections). Thus, during their first year in college, they are
required to assimilate a vast amount of academic material under stringent time
constraints and often less than optimal study conditions; they need to acquire
efficient study habits and techniques to cope with the massive amount of material
assigned, take concise but comprehensive notes during lectures, learn how to
efficiently summarize reading assignments, employ the university library services
and computer system in locating relevant materials, and master the art of preparing
term and seminar papers. Students need to calculate carefully their time resources
and to be sufficiently motivated to invest the time and energy required to meet
academic course requirements (term papers, exercises, projects, oral reports, etc.).
Furthermore, they need to learn to adjust to the highly competitive atmosphere on
campus during their first year in college, experiencing considerable pressure to
achieve academically from peers, parents, and society at large. Students also need to
develop the wherewithal to cope effectively with and negotiate the demands and
pressures of the final examination period.
In addition to the possible stress associated with initial exposure to college studies
and highly bureaucratic university administration procedures, students must make
necessary adjustments to their social milieu as well. Thus, they need to learn how
best to conform to the campus subculture by adopting and espousing particular
values, pursuing academic interests, and upholding a variety of campus traditions.
Social relationships, hobbies, professional interests, reserve military duty, etc., often
place constraints on students' degrees of freedom, drain students' time resources,
and plunge students into within-role conflicts.
Some students experience considerable difficulty in adjusting to the college social
network and are often stressed by strained interpersonal relationships with peers or
faculty. On one hand, students coming from highly homogenous cultural majority
backgrounds are exposed perhaps for the first time to a diversity of student
populations from a wide variety of sociocultural groups, and this may also cause a
sense of uneasiness and stress. On the other hand, cultural or linguistic minorities
may feel slighted and particularly lonely or secluded and may be particularly
vulnerable to various strains of academic life.
Furthermore, most freshman college students are exposed to a good number of
normative life events (e.g., intimacy with partner, leaving home, choosing a career),
facing the psychosocial developmental stage challenges and life tasks characteristic
of late adolescence and transition into young adulthood. Accordingly, students in
their search for independence often prefer to live on their own during their freshman
year and need to make permanent living arrangements outside the home for the first
time in their lives. Also, the life task for achieving intimacy makes dating and
courting a primary concern. Many students establish a long term intimate
relationship and often marry and assume familial responsibilities during their
freshman year. Consequently, many students must find a source of income (e.g.,
maintain a steady job) to help them get through college and maintain their social
and familial responsibilities.
 27

It follows that the multitude of environmental demands students need to

negotiate during their freshman year may severely tax and exceed the coping
capacities of many, who consequently experience considerable stress during the first
year at college. Some of these sources of stress may lead to adjustment problems and
academic difficulties for freshman students. The potential consequences of elevated
stress levels, among other things, are feelings of frustration, anxiety, and depression.
Indeed, some students may become overwhelmed and unable to function academic-
ally as stress and anxiety mount during their first year in college.
As noted by Perlberg and Keinan (1986), studies directly bearing on stress in the
academic setting are rather limited. Whereas some previous research has looked at
sources of stress among university lecturers (e.g., Perlberg and Keinan 1986),
relatively few studies have examined stress from the student perspective. The
sprinkling of published research on student stress has been concerned mainly with
specialized populations, such as law (Gilbert and Holahan 1982; Shanfield and
Benjamin 1985), medical (Carmel and Bernstein 1987), and science (Shirom 1986)
students. There has also been some work published on specific types of student
stress, such as interpersonal stress (Barnes, Potter and Fiedler 1983) and stress in
seeking a job (Abbey, Dunkel-Schetter and Brickman 1983).
Shirom (1986) assessed stress perceptions among 108 undergraduate science
students in Israel. Examination-related stresses were found to be the most salient,
followed closely by classroom assignment overload. Additional categories of stress
include the teaching process and the interface between university and work, on one
hand, and university and family life, on the other. Unfortunately, demographic data
were not collected, so that the background correlates of student perceptions could
not be identified and assessed.
Clift and Thomas (1983) studied student work loads at Monash University in
Australia and noted that course work assignments were major sources of concern,
often keeping students under continual examination stress. Furthermore, student
perparation for end of semester exams showed up as a contribution to work load in
all subjects. Students also commented on course organization, teaching methods
and personal factors (e.g., bad study habits, family problems, insufficient finances)
as a source of difficulty.
Previous research has generally failed to examine the unique sources of stress
impinging upon students of varying sociocultural and gender group membership
during their first year in college, and very little information is available on the extent
of sociocultural and gender group differences in various dimensions of academic
stress. Thus, there is little substantive knowledge as to what constitutes the realm
and hierarchy of university-related stressors for various student subgroups in the
population.
The Israeli setting provides an opportunity to explore cultural group differences
in academic stress. Accordingly, two highly divergent cultural groups - Israeli Jews
and Arabs - differing on a wide array of sociocultural parameters (mother language,
religion, norms, custom, family structure, political orientation, social status, etc.)
study side by side in the same Israeli institutions of higher learning. Israeli Arabs are
a minority group in the true sense of the term, comprising over 18% of the total
28

population and generally being socially disadvantaged relative to their Jewish

counterparts.
Both Jews and Arabs in Israel wish to preserve their own cultural symbols, values,
and norms, and therefore elementary and post-elementary educational systems for
Jews and Arabs are kept apart. At the university level, however, Jewish majority
and Arab minority group students are exposed to more or less uniform selection
criteria, university enrollment procedures, departmental curricula, language of
instruction, instructional strategies, course study demands, evaluation techniques,
and university bureaucracy. Nevertheless, different facets of the academic environ-
ment may be differentially perceived, interpreted, and responded to as a function of
sociocultural group background.

Goals and specific hypotheses

In view of the gaps in the literature, this study aims at assessing the salience of a
variety of potential sources of stress in academia, by sociocultural group and gender,
which are experienced by freshman students in their transition from school to
college. In addition, the degree of association between stress and college achieve-
ment will be compared.
It is assumed that the assessment of student stress is a prerequisite for an
understanding of the concerns and problems of adjustments to campus life of
various subgroups in the student population. Accurate data is also deemed to be
essential for planning and implementing primary prevention strategies aimed at
mitigating the severity of stress-related reactions in varying student populations.
Based on prior research and theorizing in the literature, the following hypotheses
were generated:

Hypothesis 1: Arab students are hypothesized to be more vulnerable to various

forms of academic stress relative to their Jewish counterparts, viewing various
aspects of the Israeli academic environment as more threatening and stressful. Not
only are Arab students typically less academically prepared relative to their Israeli
peers (Zeidner 1986), but coming from a traditional cultural background, they may
be less conversant with the norms and values that facilitate successful adjustment to
a western university system and have poorer facility in Hebrew (the primary
language of instruction) and English (the primary language of assigned readings);
they may have experienced inadequate cognitive and motivational socialization to
pursue higher studies. Furthermore, as members of a cultural and linguistic
minority in Israel, they may feel socially isolated or secluded on campus and suffer
from latent prejudice and various forms of discrimination, thereby exacerbating
existing levels of stress. Recent political and social events in Israel surrounding the
occupation of the West Bank and the 'Intifadah' (uprising) may have served to
further strain Arab-Jewish relationships on campus and raise the current overall
level of stress.
 29

Hypothesis 2: It is hypothesized that lower-class students would evidence higher

levels of academic stress compared to their middle-class counterparts, particularly
with respect to economic or material sources (e.g., tuition, securing study material,
finding a steady source of income). Prior research (Diaz-Guerrero 1976; Kata 1975;
Zeidner and Safir 1989) suggests that, regardless of culture, subjects coming from
low socioeconomic status backgrounds score consistently higher than their upper
class counterparts on measures of stress and anxiety. The stress reactions among
lower-class students may be attributed to a developmental history of success and
failure in evaluative situations, and lower-class students may be predisposed to
various forms of evaluative stress, which becomes stabilized during the school years
(Zeidner and Safir 1989).

Hypothesis 3: Various lines of evidence would suggest that on average women

students will show higher levels of academic stress than men during their first year in
college. Women, compared to men, may be particularly vulnerable to stress in
general, so that exposure to similar sources of academic stress would make women
more prone to experience and report stress than men (Newmann 1986). Cross-
cultural studies of trait and test anxiety have reported significantly higher levels of
anxiety among females relative to males, both in Israel and abroad (Ben-Zur and
Zeidner 1988; Zeidner 1990; Zeidner and Safir 1988).
Furthermore, Israeli research has shown that females consistently score lower
than males on verbal and nonverbal college entrance exams (Zeidner 1987), so that
academic work may be a bit more difficult and thus more stressful for females than
for males.

Hypothesis 4: Without specifying the causal direction of the relationship, an inverse

correlation would be expected between students' levels of academic stress and first
year college grade point average (GPA). On the one hand, consistent with numerous
studies in the literature showing that heightened levels of stress and anxiety
negatively impact cognitive performance (Zeidner 1990), higher levels of academic
stress would be expected to debilitate student grade point average. On the other
hand, brighter or higher achieving students would be expected to be less pressured
by a wide array of academic stressors directly related to course achievement (or
failure).

Method

Sample

The sample was comprised of 184 Jewish (62% female) and 209 Arab (63% female)
first year college students enrolled in a Northern Israeli University. The mean
sample age was 23.87 with an SD of 3.62. The vast majority (over 85%) of the
students in both cultural groups were single. Cultural group background covaried
with SES, r (393)=0.25, p<0.001, with Jewish students coming from somewhat
30

higher SES backgrounds than their Arab counterparts. Also, Jewish students had
somewhat higher college grade point averages than Arabs {80.98>78.08, t(304)=
-3.31, p<0.0001}. Practically all of the Arab students in the present sample are
Israeli Arabs, rather than from the West Bank.

Student stress inventory construction

The Student Stress Inventory (Zeidner 1991) served as the primary data gathering
instrument in this study. The inventory was comprised of 53 items classifiable into
the following two major categories: (a) items reflecting stimuli or events directly
associated with academic life (e.g., academic curriculum; ongoing coursework;
evaluation procedures and criteria; academic administration; social milieu) and (b)
factors not directly related to academic studies, but potentially impacting upon
student functioning and academic achievement (e.g. personal and interpersonal
factors; social expectations; student's physical surroundings and accommodations;
economic factors; limited financial resources, work opportunities; and extra-
curricular demands on students' resources and time). Respondents evaluated the
degree of personal stressfulness of each of these items on a 6-point Likert-type scale
(1--not at all stressful, 6=extremely stressful). A composite index of overall student
stress was formed by a linear combination of item ratings (possible score range:
53-318). The composite scores evidenced satisfactory internal-consistency reliabil-
ity among both Jewish (Alpha=0.94) and Arab (Alpha=0.93) students.
The specific items included on the inventory were previously identified by a series
of open-ended interviews of 40 first year Israeli students (20 Jewish and 20 Arab),
evenly divided by sex, who were asked to detail specific events they experienced to be
personally stressful and which demanded specific coping resources during their first
year at college. Events which were cited by at least two respondents were considered
for inclusion in the inventory. Additional items were culled from the literature or
selected from inventories used in previous research. The draft inventory was
submitted to two expert psychologists for face validity checks and was slightly
revised based on the comments received.
Although this study focused on academic-related stressors, sources of stress
experienced in other spheres of life (work, family, leisure, etc.) were also included in
the inventory if they were thought to impinge upon the academic sphere and to
interface with other student roles during freshman year.
Data were also gathered on students' background characteristics, primarily: sex,
age, social-class (based on father's educational level), ethnic group (Jewis vs. Arab),
age, marital status, and first year college grade point average (G.P.A.).

Results

Table 1 presents the Student Stress Inventory item means separately by culture,
social-class, and gender; Table 2 presents the means and SDs for the global stress
score cross-partitioned by culture, social class, and gender.
 31

Table 1. Mean item stress ratings, by culture, sex, and social class

Culture a SESb Sex~

Stressors Jew Arab MC LC M F

1. Academic exams 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.2

2. Overload of regular study assignments 3.3 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6
3. Parental expectations (that I succeed) 2.5 4.2 3.2 3.7 3,3 3.5
4. Finding steady job/source of income 2.4 3.6 2.6 3.4 2.8 3.1
5. Securing living accommodations 1.9 3.2 2.2 3.1 2.6 2.6
6. Securing study materials 2.3 3.2 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.8
7. Insufficient financial resources 2.8 3.6 2.8 3.8 3.0 3.4
8. Poorly integrated course of study 2.2 3.1 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.6
9. Excessive amount of course assignments 3.3 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7
10. Competitive academic atmosphere 2.7 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.9
11, Army reserve duty 2.6 1.2 1.9 1.8 2.4 1.5
12. Diversity of cultural groups on campus 1.9 2.8 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.5
13. Student tuition and fees 2.8 4.2 3.2 3.9 3.2 3.8
14. Pressure of final exam period 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.4
15. Medical problems or injuries 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.8
16. Lack of time to pursue hobbies 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.4
17. Irrelevence of studies to interests 2.8 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.9
18. Political activity and student unrest 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.5
19. Personal problems/conflict with mate 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.0
20. Social expectations that I succeed 2.1 3.2 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.7
21. Sexual problems 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5
22. Inadequate study conditions at 1.9 2.7 1.9 2.8 2.2 2.4
home/dorms
23. Departmental office bureaucracy 1.5 2.5 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.1
24. Assimilating new study material 2.8 3.1 2.7 3.2 2.7 3.1
25. Religious restrictions and limitations 1.4 2.5 1.7 2.3 1.9 2.1
26. Perceived prejudice or discrimination on 1.4 3.2 1.9 2.8 2.0 2.5
campus
27. Adjusting to new social environment 1.9 2.8 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.5
28. Familial problems (e.g., with children) 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5
29. Poor academic instruction 3.5 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
30. Meeting deadlines for paper submission 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.9
31. Uncomfortable physical conditions 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.7
(study halls, chairs, etc.)
32. Conflict between work and study 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.9 2.4 2.6
demands
33. Excessive amount of material to study 3.9 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.5 4.0
34. Studies don't meet personal expectation 2.9 3.1 2.7 3.3 2.7 3.1
35. Unable to keep up with new professional 2.5 3.1 2.6 3.1 2.6 2.9
developments
36. University bureaucracy (long lines, 2.8 3.3 2.9 3.2 2.8 3.2
forms)
37. Poor faculty-student relations 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.4
38. Excessive daily time constraints 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.3
39. Domestic chores 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.5
40. Making changes in course of study 2.0 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.5
32

Table 1 (continued).

Culture s SESb Sexc

Stressors Jew Arab MC LC M F

41. Study/classes after hard day's work 2.5 3.1 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.9
42. Bibliography in foreign language 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.8 3.1 3.8
43. Presenting oral report before class 2.4 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.9
44. Changing major 2.0 2.9 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.7
45. Failing a course 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.4 3.2 3.3
46. Coping with academic material after 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.9 2.6 2.6
long respite from previous studies
47. Social life and activities on campus 2.1 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.4
48. Meeting deadlines in submitting paper 2.9 3.5 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.2
49. Language barriers 1.6 3.2 2.1 2.8 2.2 2.5
50. Difficulty in receiving good grades 2.5 3.3 2.7 3.2 2.8 2.9
(in comparison to high-school)
51. Being a financial burden on family 2.6 3.5 2.6 3.5 2.8 3.2
52. Preparing study schedule 2.2 3,2 2.4 3.1 2.6 2.8
53. Cultural difference 1.6 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.3 2.2
vis-h-vis other students

Note: MC = Middle Class, LC = Lower-class.

Based on the responses of 184 Jews and 206 Arabs.
bBased on the responses of 187 lower-class and 201 middle class respondents.
cBased on the responses of 140 males and 239 females.

Cultural group comparisons

A negative, though moderate, correlation was observed between culture (Arabs= 1,

Jews=2) and composite academic stress scores {r (388)=-0.396, p<0.001}, with
cultural background accounting for about 16% of the variance in stress scores.

Table 2. Overall academic mean stress scores. Partitioned

by culture, social class, and gender

Arab Jewish

M SD M SD

Lower-class
Male 161.16 33.99 128.21 34.40
Female 167.10 31.28 141.75 33.78
Upper-class
Male 137.13 26,91 120.76 28.33
Female 152.49 36,65 127.99 33.40
 33

Specifically, Arab students reported meaningfully higher mean levels of overall

academic stress relative to their Jewish counterparts {158.22>129.24, t(388)=8.50,
p < 0.001}.
Jewish and Arab students were significantly differentiated on about three
quarters of the sources of academic stress assessed. When group differences were
shown to be significant, higher mean ratings were generally observed among Arab
students, with one notable exception: army reserve duty {2.60>1.24, t(388)=-8.41,
p<0.001} - where higher means were observed among Jewish students (who are
required to serve in the army and reserves).
Arab students were more stressed by situations directly related to the academic
setting, such as: competitive academic atmosphere {3.25>2.69, t(388)=3.98,
p<0.001 }, academic exams {4.23>3.91, t(388)=8.50, p<0.001 }, a poorly integrated
course of study {3.09>2.17, t(388)=7.06, p<0.001 }, overload of regular exercises
{4.01>3.28, t(388)=5.74, p(0.001}, securing study materials {3.20>2.25, t(388)-~
7.13,p(0.001 }, bibliography in foreign language {3.73>3.30, t(388)=280,p~0.001 },
making changes in course of study {2.79>2.03, t(388)--6.03, p(0.001 }, difficulty in
receiving good grades in college {3.32>2.51, t(388)=6.34, p<0.001}, having to
present an oral report during class {2.94>2.39, t(388)=3.59, p(0.001}, preparing
study schedule {3.17>2.23, t(388)--7.09,p<0.001 }, departmental office bureaucracy
{2.47>1.54, t(388)--7.07, p<0.001}, and poor faculty-staff rapport {2.53>2.17,
t(388)=2.70, p<0.001 }.
In addition, a variety of non-academic stressors (i.e., personal, social, and
cultural) appear to be more stressful for Arab than for Jewish students, including:
meeting parental expectations for succes {4.23>2.54, t(388)=13.67, p<0.001},
adjusting to the new campus setting {2.80>1.95, t(388)=6.93, p<0.001 } and social
life and activities on campus {2.68>2.12, t(388)--4.45, p<0.001}, coping with the
diversity of cultural groups on campus {2.80>1.98, t(388)=5.88, p<0.001},
experiencing prejudice or discrimination {3.19>1.36, t(388)=13.27, p<0.001},
language barriers {3.15>1.61, t(388)=11.81, p<0.001}, religious restrictions and
limitations {2.50~1.44, t(388)=8.37, p<0.001}, and cultural differences vis-a-vis
other students {2.82>1.56, t(388)--7.09, p<0.001}.
Financial matters were also reported to be more salient sources of stress among
Arab than Jewish students, including: tuition and fees {4.22>2.81, t(388)=9.26,
p<0.001 }, depleted financial resources {3.64>2.82, t(388)=5.22,p<0.001 }, finding a
steady job or source of income {3.55>2.36, t(388)=7.69, p<0.001}, and being a
financial burden on the family {3.47>2.58, t(388)=5.67,p<0.001 }. Certain physical
conditions were also reported to be more stressful for Arab students, such as:
securing living accommodations {3.23>1.93, t(388)=8.38,p<0.001 }and inadequate
study conditions {2.75>1.87, t(388)=6.25, p<0.001 }.
Consistent cultural group differences notwithstanding, a sizable correlation was
observed between strung out inventory item means for the Arab and Jewish
subgroups {r(5I)=0.62,p<0.001 }. This finding suggests considerable consistency in
the rank order of perceived stress ratings for the two cultural groups: stressors
viewed as more (or less) salient by Jewish students tended to be similarly viewed by
Arab students. Furthermore, in both Jewish and Arab groups, the most salient
34

stressors were directly related to courseload and evaluative stress, with 90% overlap
in the major stressors common to the two subgroups, as follows: pressure of final
exam period, final exam, excessive amount of study material, course exams,
bibliography in foreign language, overload of study assignments, lack of time for
hobbies, failing course, and excessive daily hassles.
Similarly, a high degree of concordance (90%) was also observed in the ratings of
the least stressful events by Jewish and Arab students, which related mainly to
problems in the personal, familial, or social realm: familial problems, sexual
problems, medical problems, perceived prejudice, religious restrictions, depart-
mental office bureaucracy, cultural differences on campus, diversity of cultural
groups, and language barriers.

Social class differences

Students from lower-class backgrounds, as gauged by the father's educational level

and partitioned into upper and lower-class background by median split, were
observed to be significantly more stressed in academia than their upper-class
counterparts {156.24>133.78, t(388)=6.36, p<0.001}. Social class was moderately
correlated with overall academic stress {r(388)=-0.307, p<0.001}. This moderate
inverse relationship was observed in both Jewish {r(182)=-0.192, p<0.001 } as well
as Arab {r(207)=-0.269,p<0.001 }students, suggesting that across cultures students
of lower-class backgrounds find the first year at college somewhat more stressful
than their upper-class counterparts.
Not surprisingly, differences between middle-class and upper-class student
groups were most pronounced with respect to stressors related to financial
resources, such as: insufficient finances {3.79>2.77, t(383)=6.67,p<0.001 }, finding a
job {3.38>2.63, t(385)=4.66,/~0.001}, student tuition {3.96>3.18, t(386)=4.73,
p<0.001}, living accommodations, [3.08>2.20, t(385)=5.30, p<0.001}, securing
study materials, {2.93>2.59, t(386)=2.39, p<0.001}, and inadequate study condi-
tions, {2.77>1.91, t(348)=6.03, p<0.001}. Lower class students were also more
stressed by having to meet parental expectations {3.72>3.17, t(386)=3.67,p<0.001 },
perceived prejudice {2.76>1.93, t(353.3)=4.94,p<0.005}, and the need to adjust to
the new social environment {2.75>2.06, t(384)=5.47,p<O.O05}. However, there is a
strong relationship between the stressor hierarchies in lower and upper class
students, as suggested by a correlation of r(51)=0.706,p<0.001 between the strung
out means of the 53 stressors for the two student groups.

Gender group differences

Overall, Israeli women reported being slightly more stressed academically during
their first year in college in comparison to their male counterparts {147.89>137.99,
t(378)---2.59,p<0.001 }. Higher mean scores for females were observed on about a
third of the inventory items. The only stressor that proved to be more salient among
 35

men than women, and not surprisingly so, was army reserve duty {2.43>1.54,
t(378)=4.81, p<0.001 }.
Thus, females were found to be significantly more stressed than males with
respect to a host of directly academic concerns, such as: pressure of final exam
period {4.45>4.04, t(376)=-3.30, p<0.001 }, coping with bibliography in a foreign
language {3.78>3.07, t(376)=--4.24, p<0.001 }, presenting an oral report before the
class {2.86>2.37, t(369)=-3.04, p<0.003}, and excessive course assignments
{4.00>3.54, t(376)---3.18,p<0.002}. Women were also reported to be more stressed
by various social factors and external constraints, such as: daily bassles {3.30>2.87,
t(376)=-3.04,p<0.003} and having to take care of daily chores {2.51>2.08, t(376)---
2.91, p<0.004}.
A high correlation of r(51)=0.93, p<O.O01 was found between the strung out
means of the various stressors for male and female groups. This finding implies that
the perceptions of the relative stressfulness or 'hierarchy' of academic stressors is,
for all practical purposes, identical for males and females.

A test for interactive effects

An ANOVA was conducted for the effects of culture (Jewish vs. Arab),
socioeconomic status (upper-class vs. lower class), gender (male vs. female), and the
various interactions, upon overall stress scores. The results show significant main
effects for culture {F(1,372)=46.49, p<0.001}, social class {F(1,372)=16.57,
p<0.001 }, and gender {F(1,372)=8.14, p=0.005 }; nonsignificant effects were found
for the second and third order interactions. Respective effects sizes for culture, SES,
and gender were 0.87, 0.65, and 0.30, with the root means square in the ANOVA
(MSE=32.59) used as the denominator in calculating the d values.
An examination of the cell means indicates that the meaningfully higher levels of
stress observed among Arab compared to Jewish students are comparable within
both male (d=0.88) and female groups (d=0.83). Looked at from a different angle,
the slightly higher levels of academic stress among females compared to males, are
found to be comparable in both Arab (d=0.27) and Jewish (d=0.32). subgroups.

Relative contribution of culture vs. SES to overall stress scores

When stress was regressed upon culture and SES, as predictors, the model
accounted for about 20% of the variance in overall academic stress scores
(RSQ--0.203). With culture entering first into the regression equation, SES
contributed only about 5% of the incremental variance; with SES entering first,
culture contributed to about 11% of the incremental variance in the model. These
analyses suggest that culture and SES bear independent effects on overall academic
stress. Furthermore, compared to SES, culture has a slightly higher unique
incremental impact on academic stress.
The association between culture and stress does not appear to have been mediated
36

via SES. Thus, cultural group membership was similarly correlated with stress
among both among upper class {r(202)=-0.321, p<0.001 } and lower class students
{r(186):-0.374, p<0.001 }. Furthermore, the partial correlation between culture and
stress, with SES held constant {r=-0.347}, was only slightly lower than the zero-
order correlation between culture and stress {r=-0.396}.
By the same token, the association between SES and stress does not appear to be
due to culture, with SES moderately correlated with stress in both Jewish {r(183)=
-0.192, p<0.01} and Arab students {r(205)=-0.269, p<0.001}. The partial
correlation between SES and overall stress, with culture partialled out, was r=
-0.231 - slightly below the zero order correlation between stress and SES for the
group as a whole {r=-307, p<0.001}.

Academic stress and GPA

Academic stress correlated inversely, though modestly, with self-reported student

GPA, r(388)=-0.236, p<0.001, with more successful students reported to be under
less academic stress compared to their lower achieving counterparts. Stress
correlated significantly with GPA in both lower- {r=---0.171, p<0.05} and upper
class students {r(164)=-0.243, p<0.001 }. Although differences in the magnitude of
the correlations between stress and G.P.A. were observed for varying cultural
{Jewish: r:0.229, Arab: r=-0.116} and gender {female: r=-0.284; male: r-=--0.125}
groups, direct tests for the differential impact of stress on GPA, by culture and
gender, in turn, using ANCOVA procedures (cf. Freund and Little 198 I), showed
nonsignificant interaction effects, indicating homogeneity in the regression of
G.P.A. on stress for Jewish and Arab and male and female subgroups, respectively.

Discussion

This study set out to determine the extent of sociocultural and gender group
differences in academic stress and to assess the magnitude of relationship between
academic stress and student achievement. From a methodological point of view it
should be noted that students were not selected at random from the student
population and may not be representative of Jewish and Arab students in general.
However, close to half of the Arab student population in Israel is enrolled in the
particular university in which this study was conducted. Moreover, the sample
consisted mainly of social science and humanity students; students in the hard
sciences may experience qualitatively different stressors than students in the
behavioral sciences. Furthermore, this study used paper and pencil questionnaires,
which may be biased by social desirability factors.
With these methodological constraints in mind, the data dearly demonstrate that
students' level of academic stress during their first year at college varied as function
of cultural, social and gender group membership, in the predicted direction, thus
providing evidence in support of the first three hypotheses tested in this study.
 37

Furthermore, culture, social class, family background, and gender each indepen-
dently contribute to the prediction of overall academic stress, with culture
evidencing a stronger relationship with stress than social class or gender.
Specifically, with respect to Hypothesis 1, Arab students were found to be more
stressed than their Jewish counterparts by a host of academic, economic, physical,
personal, and social factors. This may partially account for the fact that Arab
students also obtain somewhat lower college grade point averages than Jewish
students.
However, there was considerable agreement between Arab and Jewish students
with respect to the relative salience ofstressors in academia, particularly with respect
to events rated as 'most' or 'least' stressful. Thus, in both Jewish and Arab groups,
the most salient sources of stress are directly related to academic concerns, whereas
the least salient stressors are related to personal, familial, social, and administrative
matters. Since this research focuses on sources of stress and concern in an academic
setting, stressors most germane and directly related to that setting (e.g., coursework,
academic success and failure, evaluation procedures), would also be perceived as
most stressful. Somewhat contrary to expectations, however, Arab students did not
appear to be particularly stressed by their status as a cultural/linguistic minority
group or by prejudice on campus, although these factors would be expected to be
more salient for Arabs than for their Jewish counterparts.
Furthermore, this study vindicates Hypothesis 2 predicting that students from
lower-class background are more stressed academically than their middle class
counterparts. This may be attributed, in part, to poorer cognitive, motivational, or
affective socialization towards academic life, coupled with poorer schooling and
consequent lower scholastic proficiency.
The data pointing to consistent gender differences in both Jewish and Arab
students support Hypothesis 3 and are also consistent with some previous research
indicating that Israeli females tended to perceive various types of stressors as more
distressing than male students (cf. Carmel and Bernstein 1987). Furthermore, the
consistent gender differences in both Jewish and Arab students indicate that the
initial encounter with the academic experience may have been more stressful to
females than males across divergent cultures. Paradoxically, although women
generally tend to take less rigorous courses and are enrolled in less 'quantitative'
majors compared to males in the university under consideration, being over-
represented in the humanities, education and social work and underrepresented in
math and the sciences (personal communication, July 22, 1991, Rachel Ramraz,
Evaluation Unit of University of Haifa), women are nevertheless reported to be
more stressed by both academic and nonacademic factors.
However, the perceptions of the relative stressfulness or 'hierarchy' of academic
stressors is, for all practical purposes, identical for males and females. Furthermore,
the homogenous regression for G.P.A. on stress, by gender, implies that although
women students are more stressed than men students, at any given level of stress,
acdemic achievement is not more debilitating for one group than the other.
Observed sex differences in academic stress may reflect different ways of coping
with stress by gender. Thus, while males may experience the same amount of stress
38

as females, the former are taught that it is a feminine trait and they should not
exhibit it. Also, females may be less defensive than males and consequently more
willing to admit that they are stressed. Thus, a reasonable question is whether the
stress reported is real or mainly an artifact resulting from extraneous factors (e.g.,
social desirability).
This study reports that Jewish males are somewhat less stressed academically
during their freshman year than both their female Jewish counterparts, on the one
hand, and their Arab male counterparts, on the other. Therefore, these data provide
some support for the 'immunization hypothesis' (Breznitz and Eshel 1983) claiming
that exposing an individual to specific stress can sometimes better prepare that
person to deal with similar stressful problems in the future. Accordingly, Israeli
males shoulder the lion's share of responsibility in the army and are more frequently
exposed to physical threat than their female counterparts both during active duty
and when serving in the military. The intense stress may provide some sort of
habituation on the part of Israeli students and lead to an overall reduction in the
weights assigned various stressors, academic stressors included. It seems plausible
that had this study been conducted on Arab students living in the West Bank, the
daily stress may have had considerable inoculating effects for many Arab students
as well.
Group differences notwithstanding, there appears to be a high degree of
concordance in the perceptions of varying cultural groups with respect to the
relative salience of stressors and particularly with respect to the most and least
stressful stimuli impinging upon them in college. Whereas the stressor hierarchies
were virtually identical for men and women, they were less consistent, though still
strongly related, for Jews and Arabs as well as middle class and lower-class students.
These findings lend some cross-cultural evidence to the generalizability of the
hierarchy of academic stressors impinging upon students in varying cultural
settings. The relative salience of freshman concerns is quite similar across cultures,
with the commonalities in concerns often greater than their uniquenesses.
These data, reporting a modest inverse relationship between stress and academic
achievement, provide some evidence for Hypothesis 4, although they do not speak
to the causal direction of the observed relationship. On the one hand, stress may be
the antecedent factor in the relationship {stress .... > college achievement, with high
degrees of academic stress serving to debilitate students' academic achievement by
diverting cognitive and emotional resources from goal directed academic behaviors
to self-related cognitions and worries, producing avoidance behaviors, pro-
crastinations, and the like. On the other hand, student achievement may be the
antecedent factor {college achievement --- > stress}, with brighter students less
pressured by a variety of academic stressors directly related to course achievement
or failure. Thus, brighter students may have more viable cognitive coping resources
which would serve as a buffer against a variety of potential stressors (course exams,
academic overload, assimilating new study materials, etc.).
Furthermore, the data are consistent with much previous research on student
stress. Thus, they agree with those reported by Shirom (1986) for Israeli
undergraduate science students, showing that examination related stresses and
 39

classroom assignment overload (required readings, writing assignment, and

deadline for term paper submission) are the most salient sources of undergraduate
student stress. Additional sources of stress for students found to be common to
Shirom's study and the present one are: the teaching process; stresses bearing upon
the university-work interface (e.g., coming to class after a tiring workday, having to
work); and stresses bearing on the university-family interface (e.g., having to fulfill
familial obligations and university assignments at the same time).
Similarly, the present f'mdings corroborate those reported by Clift and Thomas
(1983) that course assignment work and end-of-semester exams, in particular, show
up as major sources of work load for students in all subjects. Also, course
organization, teachingmethod, and personal factors (bad study habits, financial
and study habits, family problems, etc.) were reported to be common sources of
concern in the two studies.
Examination stress and coursework overload surface again and again as
particularly strong stressors, both across cultures and for various sociocultural and
gender subgroups within the Israeli population. Time constraints also figure
prominently in this study as a major source of stress among freshman in both
cultures. Indeed, time is a crucial resource threatened by university related demands,
particularly in view of the fact that the majority of students in the sample work their
way through college. Curiously, both students and their major role partners, i.e.,
faculty members, are concerned that they have too much to do and are suffering
from a temporary overload condition (Eble and McKeachie 1985).
The first year at college is an important transitional or crisis stage when decisions
are generally made about such cardinal issues as career choice, choice of mate, and
personal/social/professional identity. Sociocultural features were shown to in-
fluence the experience of stress in young adults. In view of the concordance between
these data and data reported in other studies, particularly with respect to the salience
of academic evaluation, time constraints, and overload of course assignments, the
findings also lend some evidence to the cross-cultural generalizability of major
stressors in academia.

References

Abbey, A., Dunkel-Schetter, C. and Brickman, P. (1983). 'Handling the stress of looking for a job in law
school: the relationship between intrinsic motivation, internal attributes, relations with others, and
happiness', Basic and AppliedPsychology 4, 263-278.
Barnes, V., Potter III, E. H. and Fiedler, F. E. (1983). 'Effects of interpersonal stress on the prediction of
acdemic performance', Journalof Applied Psychology 63, 686-697.
Ben-Zur, H. and Zeidner, M. (1988). 'Sex differences in anxiety, curiosity, and anger: A cross-cultural
study', Sex Roles 19, 335-347.
Breznitz, S. and Eshel, Y. (1983). 'Life events: stressful ordeal or valuable experience', in Breznitz, S.
(ed.), Stress in Israel. New York: Van Nostrant Reinhold, pp. 228-261.
Carmel, S. and Bernstein, J. (1987). 'Perceptions of medical school stressors: their relationship to age,
year of study, and trait anxiety', Journal of Human Stress, 39--44.
Clift, J. C. and Thomas, I. D. (1983). 'Student work loads', Higher Education 2, 447--460.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (19767. 'Test and general anxiety in Mexican-American school children', in
40

Spielberger C.D. and Diaz-Guerrero, R. (eds.), Cross-cultural anxiety (Vol. 1). Washington:
Hemisphere, pp. 135-142
Eble, K.E. and McKeachie, W.J. (1985). Improving Undergraduate Education through Faculty
Development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Edwards, M.T. and Zimet, C.N. (1976). 'Problems and concerns among medical students - 1975',
Journal of Medical Education 50, 589-595.
Freund, R. J. and Little, R. C. (1981). SASfor linear models. Cary: SAS Institute.
Gilbert, L.A. and Holahan, C.K. (1982). 'Conflicts between student professional, parental and self
development roles: a comparison of high and low effective copers', Human Relations 35,630-648.
Kata, K. (1975). 'On anxiety in the Scandinavian countries', in Sarason, I. G. and Spielberger, C. D.
(eds.), Stress and Anxiety, (Vol. 2). Washington: Hemisphere, pp. 275-302.
Lazarus, R. S. and Launier, R. (1978). 'Stress-related transactions between person and environment',in
Pervin, L. A. and Lewis, M. (eds.), Perspectiveson [Link] York: Plenum Press,
pp. 287-327.
Mechanic, D. (1962). Students under stress. New York: Free Press of Glenco.
Newmann, J. P. (1986). 'Gender, life strains and depression', Journal of Health and Social Behavior 27,
161-178.
Perlberg, A. and Keinan, G. (1986). 'Sources of stress in academic- the Israeli case', HigherEducation 15,
73-88.
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shanfleld, S.B. & Benjamin, A.H. (1985). 'Psychiatric distress in law students', Journal of Legal
Education 35, 65-75.
Shirom, A. (1986). 'Students' stress', Higher Education 15,667--676.
Zeidner, M. (1986). 'Validity of college admission indices for Jews and Arabs in Israel', Personality and
Individual Differences8, 587-589.
Zeidner, M. (1986). 'Sex differences in scholastic ability in Jewish and Arab college students in Israel',
Journal of Social Psycholgy 7, 847-852.
Zeidner, M. (1988). 'Health and demographic correlates of trait anxiety in Israeli adults', Anxiety
Research 1,127-135.
Zeidner, M. (1990). 'Does test anxiety bias scholastic aptitude test performance by gender and
sociocultural group', Journal of Personality Assessment 55, 145-160.
Zeidner, M. (1991). Student Stress Inventory Manual. Haifa: School of Education, University of Haifa.
Zeidner, M. & Satir, M. (1989). 'Sex, ethnic, and social differences in test anxiety among Israeli
adolescents', Journal of GeneticPsychology 150, 175-185.
Zeidner, M., Klingman, A., and Papko, O. (1988). 'Enhancing students' test coping skills: report of a
psychological health education program', Journal of Educational Psychology 80, 95-101.